Posted on 05/08/2009 9:12:19 PM PDT by lonestar67
I have seen them all my life.
What color is the sky in your world?
One has to only think of the massively expansive, horrendously expensive federal power grab that was No Child Left Behind, which President Bush supported and happily signed onto, to understand that your premise is wrong.
No amount of post-game whitewashing will ever make that mess right.
Was Reagan a RINO?
| Table F-1. | |||||||||||||||
| Revenues, Outlays, Surpluses, Deficits, and Debt Held by the Public, 1969 to 2008 | |||||||||||||||
| (Billions of dollars) | |||||||||||||||
| Deficit (-) or Surplus |
Debt
|
|
|||||||||||||
| On- | Social | Postal |
Held by
|
||||||||||||
| Revenues | Outlays | Budget | Security | Service | Total |
the Publica
|
|||||||||
| 1969 | 186.9 | 183.6 | -0.5 | 3.7 |
n.a.
|
3.2 | 278.1 | ||||||||
| 1970 | 192.8 | 195.6 | -8.7 | 5.9 |
n.a.
|
-2.8 | 283.2 | ||||||||
| 1971 | 187.1 | 210.2 | -26.1 | 3.0 |
n.a.
|
-23.0 | 303.0 | ||||||||
| 1972 | 207.3 | 230.7 | -26.1 | 3.1 | -0.4 | -23.4 | 322.4 | ||||||||
| 1973 | 230.8 | 245.7 | -15.2 | 0.5 | -0.2 | -14.9 | 340.9 | ||||||||
| 1974 | 263.2 | 269.4 | -7.2 | 1.8 | -0.8 | -6.1 | 343.7 | ||||||||
| 1975 | 279.1 | 332.3 | -54.1 | 2.0 | -1.1 | -53.2 | 394.7 | ||||||||
| 1976 | 298.1 | 371.8 | -69.4 | -3.2 | -1.1 | -73.7 | 477.4 | ||||||||
| 1977 | 355.6 | 409.2 | -49.9 | -3.9 | 0.2 | -53.7 | 549.1 | ||||||||
| 1978 | 399.6 | 458.7 | -55.4 | -4.3 | 0.5 | -59.2 | 607.1 | ||||||||
| 1979 | 463.3 | 504.0 | -39.6 | -2.0 | 0.9 | -40.7 | 640.3 | ||||||||
| 1980 | 517.1 | 590.9 | -73.1 | -1.1 | 0.4 | -73.8 | 711.9 | ||||||||
| 1981 | 599.3 | 678.2 | -73.9 | -5.0 | -0.1 | -79.0 | 789.4 | ||||||||
| 1982 | 617.8 | 745.7 | -120.6 | -7.9 | 0.6 | -128.0 | 924.6 | ||||||||
| 1983 | 600.6 | 808.4 | -207.7 | 0.2 | -0.3 | -207.8 | 1,137.3 | ||||||||
| 1984 | 666.5 | 851.9 | -185.3 | 0.3 | -0.4 | -185.4 | 1,307.0 | ||||||||
| 1985 | 734.1 | 946.4 | -221.5 | 9.4 | -0.1 | -212.3 | 1,507.3 | ||||||||
| 1986 | 769.2 | 990.4 | -237.9 | 16.7 |
0.0
|
-221.2 | 1,740.6 | ||||||||
| 1987 | 854.4 | 1,004.1 | -168.4 | 19.6 | -0.9 | -149.7 | 1,889.8 | ||||||||
| 1988 | 909.3 | 1,064.5 | -192.3 | 38.8 | -1.7 | -155.2 | 2,051.6 | ||||||||
| 1989 | 991.2 | 1,143.8 | -205.4 | 52.4 | 0.3 | -152.6 | 2,190.7 | ||||||||
| 1990 | 1,032.1 | 1,253.1 | -277.6 | 58.2 | -1.6 | -221.0 | 2,411.6 | ||||||||
| 1991 | 1,055.1 | 1,324.3 | -321.4 | 53.5 | -1.3 | -269.2 | 2,689.0 | ||||||||
| 1992 | 1,091.3 | 1,381.6 | -340.4 | 50.7 | -0.7 | -290.3 | 2,999.7 | ||||||||
| 1993 | 1,154.5 | 1,409.5 | -300.4 | 46.8 | -1.4 | -255.1 | 3,248.4 | ||||||||
| 1994 | 1,258.7 | 1,461.9 | -258.8 | 56.8 | -1.1 | -203.2 | 3,433.1 | ||||||||
| 1995 | 1,351.9 | 1,515.9 | -226.4 | 60.4 | 2.0 | -164.0 | 3,604.4 | ||||||||
| 1996 | 1,453.2 | 1,560.6 | -174.0 | 66.4 | 0.2 | -107.4 | 3,734.1 | ||||||||
| 1997 | 1,579.4 | 1,601.3 | -103.2 | 81.3 |
0.0
|
-21.9 | 3,772.3 | ||||||||
| 1998 | 1,722.0 | 1,652.7 | -29.9 | 99.4 | -0.2 | 69.3 | 3,721.1 | ||||||||
| 1999 | 1,827.6 | 1,702.0 | 1.9 | 124.7 | -1.0 | 125.6 | 3,632.4 | ||||||||
| 2000 | 2,025.5 | 1,789.2 | 86.4 | 151.8 | -2.0 | 236.2 | 3,409.8 | ||||||||
| 2001 | 1,991.4 | 1,863.2 | -32.4 | 163.0 | -2.3 | 128.2 | 3,319.6 | ||||||||
| 2002 | 1,853.4 | 2,011.2 | -317.4 | 159.0 | 0.7 | -157.8 | 3,540.4 | ||||||||
| 2003 | 1,782.5 | 2,160.1 | -538.4 | 155.6 | 5.2 | -377.6 | 3,913.4 | ||||||||
| 2004 | 1,880.3 | 2,293.0 | -568.0 | 151.1 | 4.1 | -412.7 | 4,295.5 | ||||||||
| 2005 | 2,153.9 | 2,472.2 | -493.6 | 173.5 | 1.8 | -318.3 | 4,592.2 | ||||||||
| 2006 | 2,407.3 | 2,655.4 | -434.5 | 185.2 | 1.1 | -248.2 | 4,829.0 | ||||||||
| 2007 | 2,568.2 | 2,728.9 | -342.2 | 186.5 | -5.1 | -160.7 | 5,035.1 | ||||||||
| 2008 | 2,524.3 | 2,982.9 | -641.8 | 180.8 | 2.4 | -458.5 | 5,802.7 | ||||||||
| Source: Congressional Budget Office. | |||||||||||||||
| Note: n.a. = not applicable (the Postal Service was not an independent agency until 1972); * = between -$50 million and $50 million. | |||||||||||||||
| a. End of year. | |||||||||||||||
| revised: | 4/14/09 | ||||||||||||||
Yeah, ya see so many conservatives just don't have any compassion, they're more the evil, heartless, cold type conservatives.
Sheesh.
This post is a good collection of Bush-bot Bad excuse narratives :
1)Bush tax cuts alone saved the economy (Greenspan money supply had nothing to do with it),
2) evil global bankers and Barney Frank crashed the economy Bush saved, but crash would have been worse WITHOUT Bush TARP1 (that Obama later made bad), so Bush saved us again last fall, we just dont appreciate it
3) Reagan was not perfect, dis Bush and you dis Reagan, and are not a Real conservative like him because he loves Reagan.
4) Bush had to give in to democrats for political reasons (worked great politically in 2006+2008, for DEMOCRATS),
5) Republican congress was no good, blame them instead of Bush,
6) Obama is worse than Bush,
Any others you can think of??
Here's another warm memory from my collection : December 01, 2008 :Bush tells Charlie Gibson that he came into office “unprepared for war,” and that he regrets the faulty intelligence of Saddam Hussein’s WMD
Even in his budget analysis document, he admitted the crisis was coming if he kept going the way he was.
Yeah, he sure gave us security at home, keeping the southern border WIDE open!
7) He let Rush sleep in the Lincoln bedroom.
Honey, you might as well go bang your head on the wall as to deal with some open border posters. They’ve seen the facts and been told of the destruction for years. They don’t care. They don’t care if we all die or lose this country to the third world.
Following is an article sent by NAFBPO this morning. It is a MUST read!
President of Costa Rica: United States not to blame for past, present or future ills confronting Latin America
Posted: 08 May 2009
La Prensa (Managua, Nicaragua) 5/7/09
(Full translation of speech by Oscar Arias, President of Costa Rica, at the Summit of the Americas meeting in Trinidad & Tobago on April 18, 2009)
“I have the impression that every time Caribbean and Latin American countries get together with the president of the United States of America it is to ask for things or to demand something. Almost always it’s to blame the United States for our past, present and future ills. I don’t believe that is at all just. We cannot forget that Latin America had universities before the United States created Harvard and William & Mary, which are the first universities of that country. We cannot forget that in this continent, as in the whole world, at least until 1750 all Americans were more or less the same: all were poor.
When the industrial revolution came about in England, other countries hopped on that wagon: Germany, France, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand…… and thus the Industrial Revolution passed over Latin America like a comet, and we didn’t realize it. Certainly, we lost the opportunity.
There’s also a very big difference. Reading the history of Latin America, compared with the history of the United States, one realizes that Latin America did not have a Spaniard John Winthrop, nor a Portuguese who might have come with a bible in hand, ready to build “a City on a Hill”, a city that would shine, as was the wish of the pilgrims who arrived in the United States.
Fifty years ago, Mexico was richer than Portugal. In 1950, a country such as Brazil had a higher per capita income than that of South Korea. Sixty years ago, Honduras had more riches per capita than Singapore, and today Singapore – in something like 35 or 40 years – is a country with $40,000 annual income per person. Well, we Latin Americans did something wrong.
What did we do wrong? I cannot list all the things we did wrong. To start, we have a seven-year schooling. That is the average length of schooling in Latin America and it’s not the case with the majority of Asian countries. It’s certainly not the case in countries such as the United States and Canada, with the best education in the world, similar to the Europeans’. For every 10 students who enter high school in Latin America, in some countries only one finishes. There are countries with an infant mortality of 50 children per thousand, when in the more advanced countries it is 8, 9 or 10. We have countries where the tax load is 12 percent of the gross national product, and it’s no one’s responsibility, except our own, that we don’t tax the richest people of our countries. No one is to blame for that, except we ourselves.
In 1950 each American citizen was four times richer than a Latin American citizen. Today, an American citizen is 10, 15 or 20 times richer than a Latin American. That is not the fault of the United States, it’s our fault.
The value system of the 20th century, which seems to be the one we are putting into practice in the 21st century, is a wrong value system. Because it cannot be that the rich world devotes 100 billion dollars to alleviate the poverty of 80 percent of the world’s population – in a planet that has 2.5 billion human beings with a $2 a day income – and that it spends 13 times more ($1,300,000,000,000) in weapons and soldiers.
It’s incredible that Latin America spends $50 billion in weapons and soldiers. I ask myself: who is our enemy? Our enemy, of that inequality which President Correa (of Ecuador) points out very correctly, is the lack of education; it is illiteracy; it’s that we don’t spend on the health of our people; that we don’t create the necessary infrastructure, the roads, the highways, the ports, the airports; it’s that we are not dedicating the necessary resources to stop the deterioration of the environment; it’s the lack of equality which we have, which really makes us ashamed; it is a product, among many things, of course, of the fact that we are not educating our sons and our daughters.
One goes to a Latin American university and it still seems we are in the sixties, seventies or eighties. It seems we forgot that something very important happened on November 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, and that the world changed. We have to accept that this is a different world, and about this I honestly believe that all thinking persons, all the economists, all the historians, almost agree that the 21st century is the century of the Asians, not of the Latin Americans. And I, unfortunately, agree with them. Because while we keep arguing about the “isms” (which is better? capitalism, socialism, communism, liberalism, neo-liberalism, social-christianism…) the Asians found a very realistic “ism” for the 21st and for the end of the 20th century, which is pragmatism. Just to mention an example, let us remember that when Deng Xiaoping visited Singapore and South Korea, after having realized that his own neighbors were quickly becoming richer, he returned to Peking and told the old comrades who had accompanied him on the Long March: “Well, the truth is, dear comrades, that I don’t care whether the cat is black or white, the only thing that matters to me is that it catch mice”. And if Mao would have been alive he would have died again when he said that “the truth is that becoming rich is glorious”. And while the Chinese do this, and from 79 until today they grow at some 11, 12 or 13 percent, and they have taken some 300 million out of poverty, we keep on arguing about ideologies which we should have buried a long time ago.
The good news is that Deng Xiaoping achieved this when he was 74 years old. Looking around, I don’t see (among the presidents who participated in the Summit) anyone who is close to 74 years of age. That’s why I ask you not to reach that age in order to make the changes which we have to make.”
Bush was not a fiscal conservative in any sense of the term.
Compared to Obama, he was as tight as a straight guy in a gay bar.
And compared to a conservative, he was LBJ.
There is another one in here with no screen name.
No GW missed The fiscal responsibility Class while attending Mexican Migration Classes.
We understand the Tax cut VS revenue BUT you bring in a Single dollar and Then Spend a Hundred rebuilding a Country floating on Oil and sacrificing America in the process,That makes You a Dumb-ass.
What a fascinating claim.
This is just laughable at this point. I don’t know what possessed you to start this thread.
Pretend Bush was a democrat for a second. Do you still love his record?
Bush was a fiscal conservative in the same sense that democrats in the suburbs claim to be, ie not at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.